This is somewhat surprising (or maybe it’s just me). The CA prison system sent in experts to evaluate mental health care (pretty common). The judge has thrown out the subsequent reports and says that the experts violated ethics laws because they interviewed the inmates (part of a class action lawsuit) without the attorneys present and because the resulting reports were then used to validate the state’s claim that the prison system no longer needed court oversight of its mental health care services.
Does the fact that the reports were used to validate the state’s claim really matter? In Ohio, experts agreed upon by both plaintiffs counsel and the state conducted focus groups, did chart reviews, etc, and then produced reports – all normal. And those reports were then used by both sides to support their separate claims that oversight should or should not continue. Just because the experts produced a report that supported the state’s claim doesn’t invalidate the report. After all, if it’s like Ohio, the experts themselves were agreed upon by both sides to serve as an impartial monitor. It seems like they did their job…
April 8, 2013 | Jenny Jiang | What the Folly?!
California officials and their consultants violated the rules of ethics when they interviewed mentally ill prisoners without permission and used the information collected to justify state’s request to terminate federal oversight of the state’s mental health system, a federal judge ruled on Friday.
“The court finds that Defendants [state officials] violated their professional duty,”wrote Karlton. “Defendants [California officials] used the information they gleaned from the inmates against the inmates, in support of their motion to terminate and to vacate the injunction.”
Without the experts’ reports…
View original post 206 more words